Dragon Age: Origins CPU benchmarks - 75 percent boost for quad-cores

champ21 - 48 days 17 hours ago

your Quadcore @3.2ghz will be great for this game.

though here is one game the I7 really shines at.

remember few months ago most of us thought I7 isnt much better then the quad cores.

If crossfire is well optimised i could be looking at running this game close to 100fps @1920*1200

though one thing to take note of, even a core to duo 8400 (which is about 2yrs old now) still manages to do 37 avg fps while the lowest fps is still above 24 that should make for good game play when compared to console hardware.

consoles would be doing 30fps avg then dipping to 15fps making for choppy play under heavy scenes. also remember the e8400 is running the game far above console resolutions.

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report

Barragan - 48 days 17 hours ago

your not doing a good job at making pc look like the more powerful platform

Agree(0) | Disagree(5) | Report

dchalfont - 48 days 17 hours ago

so your telling me that my pc, which gets a 59 frame average @1680*1050 and max settings (according to these benchmarks), with the pc version of the game which has much higher res textures and much better effects, and well as draw distances etc etc ( i could go on forever), is not better than a 24frame average on ps3 at 720p, with what would be the equivelent of the pc version on low settings

did i mention the 59 frame average at max settings included 4aa...because the 24frame ps3 average include no aa...

my computer which is about 2 years old is at least 3 times as powerful as a ps3....and computers aren't just used for games there mr foolish. Don't bring your ignorance in here, why don't you find your way to a ps3 thread and write 'play beyond', so that all the other 15 year old's can giggle with you...

@evrfighter

thanks for the good news, from these benchmarks I though i would just be getting 60 frame average with 4aa, but my gtx280 should give it a beat down in that case, my cpu is practically identical in performance to yours and i have 4gb ddr2 also.

EDIT for barrigan, i take my above comment back....it will run at more than 60 frames at all times with 8aa....even at a higher res than i'm running now...good day bazza

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

Cosquae - 48 days 17 hours ago

If your rig can handle 100fps at 1920 x 1200 resolution then you might want to try upping it to 2500 x 1600 (assuming your monitor can handle that). Cost you a bit in fps but nothing noticable I would imagine.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

evrfighter - 48 days 17 hours ago

care to elaborate barragan?

there is no mention of ps3 in those comments.

I just got done playing this for the entire night. oops...good thing I don't work tomorrow.

Im on a phenom II quad 940 @ 3.4ghz
HD4890
4gb ddr2

I can happily say that my pc runs this
1080p, 8xAA, Maxed out with a constant 60fps. I hover around 70 when Vsync is disabled.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

LostDjinn - 48 days 16 hours ago

If you upgrade to a new graphics card shortly it'll pick up some of the slack. GPGPUs still need a CPU to function. The CPU only need run serial tasks, while parallel tasks can be shared. Any crappy CPU can get outstanding results. A 3.2ghz Quad is by no means a crappy CPU. If you can afford the card it'll give a much greater performance increase than running a new chip.
Some how I think you already knew that though.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

dirthurts - 48 days 15 hours ago

I have pretty much the same rig as you
940@3.4
4890
4gb ram

Good to see someone on here with good taste ; )

Anywho, good to see my rig will run this well.

And barragan, take your PS3 fanboy stuff home. Big kids play here.

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

JsonHenry - 48 days 14 hours ago

I don't know why this game is so demanding. It looks like someone ate a games graphics from 2004 and sh!t it out and then put it in this game.

I admit that the game is a LOT of fun and the story, voice acting, music, and gameplay are all top notch. But the graphics really, and I mean in a HUGE way, disappointed me. I would expect the dumbed down GFX on a console that is going on 5 years old, but NOT on my PC.

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

narked - 48 days 17 hours ago

im not sure about the graphic card. i think it would run it, but im not sure how. even if it could play it your graphics would be low. i think

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Cosquae - 48 days 16 hours ago

Hate to bring bad news, but looking at the minimum specs on the DA website, an 8400 GS isn't going to cut it. It's not as powerful as a 7600 GT (which is the minimum card they say).

Shame, the rest of the pc sounds perfectly adequate. A $50 graphics card would be all you need.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

dirthurts - 48 days 14 hours ago

4830 is pretty cheap.
Ton of bang for you buck there.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Arnon - 48 days 12 hours ago

I'm running a ATI Radeon HD Sapphire 4830 512 MB GDDR3 that I bought off of Newegg for about $70. It pretty much plays every game I own on max settings. Go with that.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

dchalfont - 48 days 16 hours ago

my last gpu was an 8800gt, aint nothing wrong with that, it'll player every single game at max settings except crysis, and get over 30 frames, you just need to run 2* or no aa, that's nothing to sneeze at, at least your ahead of the max settings (when doom 3 came out i was pushing 20 frame on low with no aa at 1024*768...my geforce 4400ti served me well....until then )

@coco01

a decent power supply is crucial. I had a 650 watt Antec, and although it had enough watts it was a **** PSU, so it's best to save up and get a decent power supply before you even think about getting a new card.

this card is good for your budget

http://www.newegg.com/Produ...

this is the lowest in watts i would go for a PSU

http://www.newegg.com/Produ...

it costs more than the card....but like i said, at least the card will work, corsair is a great brand too ( 7 year warranty)

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

Feral Gamer - 48 days 16 hours ago

Bubbles for being helpful!

I dunno about my monitor but it's a 22" samsung widescreen

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

champ21 - 48 days 16 hours ago

@feralgamer

8800gt is a very good card, its very close to a 8800gtx in performance.

only major difference is 8800gtx has more memory 768memory on it, so it can handle higher resolutions like 1920*1200 better while those resolutions might start to strain the 8800gt(only when too much AA is used like 4x - 8x AA) then the 512mb would become a bottleneck.

you paid 10usd extra for your game on the ps3, while the pc version on your setup would have run better and had better controls, mods etc.

imo bad decision going ps3.

what resolution does your pc monitor support?

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

JsonHenry - 48 days 14 hours ago

I have an AMD 6000+ dual core and an HD5870 and I can play this game @1680*1050, everything maxed, and x24 AA forced through my CCC at a smooth average of 51FPS and a low of 34FPS. (according to FRAPS)

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

champ21 - 48 days 16 hours ago

coco dude i would really recommend giving the gpu a good budget.

you can get a gpu for 50gbp, but it just wont be worth it.

the gpu is the most important component of the system. if the gpu is not good nothing else will make up for it. having a slightly slow cpu is still ok, gpus do a better job of making up for it.

imo set aside 100gbp atleast.. you wont regret it in the long run it will save you alot more on every game you buy compared to any other platform. i would think you could easily get a 4890 from ati or 275gtx from nvidia for 100gbp both are really good cards.

any of these gpus should last this generation of consoles upgrade wont be needed till the next gen.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Arnon - 48 days 12 hours ago

http://www.newegg.com/Produ...

This is what I'm running. It works just fine.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

dchalfont - 48 days 17 hours ago

no it isn't this one is cpu benchmarks, the other was gpu

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report